CUNY Academic Works CUNY Academic Works
Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects CUNY Graduate Center
2-2017
Fitting-in: How Formerly Incarcerated New York City Black Men Fitting-in: How Formerly Incarcerated New York City Black Men Define Success Post-Prison
Define Success Post-Prison
Mika'il DeVeaux
The Graduate Center, City University of New York
How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know!
More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1822 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu
This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY).
Contact: [email protected]
FITTING-IN: HOW FORMERLY INCARCERATED NEW YORK CITY BLACK MEN DEFINE SUCCESS POST-PRISON
by
MIKA’IL DeVEAUX
A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Social Welfare in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York
2017
ii
© 2017
MIKA’IL DeVEAUX All Rights Reserved
iii Fitting-in: How Formerly Incarcerated New York City
Black Men Define Success Post-Prison
by
Mika’il DeVeaux
This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Social Welfare in satisfaction of dissertation requirement for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
_____________________________ ____________________________________
Date Roderick J. Watts
Chair of Examining Committee
_____________________________ ____________________________________
Date Harriet Goodman
Executive Officer
Supervisory Committee:
Steve Burghardt Willie F. Tolliver
THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
iv Fitting-in: How Formerly Incarcerated New York City
Black Men Define Success Post-Prison
by
Mika’il DeVeaux Advisor: Roderick J. Watts, Ph.D.
The problem of community reintegration emerged following the rise of the US prison population, which began in in the 1970s, disproportionately affecting US-born African American men. In this qualitative study, the researcher examined the perceptions of 17 formerly
incarcerated New York City African American men to understand how they defined post-prison success after having been in the community at least three years in the wake of the era of mass (hyper) incarceration.
During the study, the researcher employed a constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006) approach using data from semi-structured interviews to identify factors that enabled these African American men to make the social and psychological adjustments needed to get on with their lives post-release. Success, as defined by the men in the study, meant fitting-in to their home communities as if they had never been in prison. The findings of this study demonstrate that success is a construct inclusive of material, social, and psychological components. A number of themes emerged from the data that respondents attached importance to that the researcher linked to each component of success and subsequently related to the fitting-in process.
The eligibility requirements for this study, which limited participation to men who had been out of prison at least three years, restricted generalizability of the results and suggest that length of time since release likely influenced definitions of success. This dissertation concludes
v proposing research to examine potentially influencing issues related to time upon definitions of success, post-prison achievements, and the psychological effects of the incarceration experience and its relationship to African American men’s post-prison experiences. These findings can enhance social work practice with justice-involved African American men, enable social workers to better understand this population, and encourage the development of additional methods to address the psychological challenges related to post-prison adjustment likely to contribute to their well-being.
vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work would have not been possible without the voices of the 17 African American men who spent a portion of their time enlightening me. A tremendous thank you is offered to all the instructional staff at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center and the Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College who inspired me, particularly Mimi Abramovitz, Michael Fabricant, Michelle Fine, Harriet Goodman, Bernadette Hadden, Paul Kurzman, and Deborah Tolman.
I acknowledge and thank the leadership and members of the Mosque of Islamic Brotherhood, Inc. located in the Village of Harlem, who gave me a space and a place in their hearts and community, both of which helped me along this journey.
I wish to acknowledge love lost for what it was and love found for what it is that have made the journey meaningful.
A special acknowledgement goes out to the men I left behind who asked that I
“represent” them when leaving prison. Although this acknowledgment comes near the end, Mrs.
Bernice D. Newkirk has been there from the beginning. She has never stopped encouraging and supporting me throughout my life and this process. Finally, a special acknowledgment goes out to Rev. Kenneth W. Newkirk who taught me things even in his absence. No matter how good the writing may be, everyone needs another pair of eyes to make sure commas are where they should be and so much more. Thanks Dr. Maisah Robinson for your awesome review and encouragement to go on.
Finally, I especially thank and acknowledge Dr. Roderick J. Watts, who, in addition to being the chair of my dissertation committee, is also a friend who patiently guided me through this process and helped me to grow as a person and as an intellectual.
vii TABLE OF CONTENTS
COPYRIGHT PAGE ii
APPROVAL PAGE iii
ABSTRACT iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Community Reintegration: An Emerging Social Problem 1
Background to the Problem: The Era of Mass (Hyper) Incarceration 4
Change in imprisonment objectives 8
Changing sentencing strategies 11
Mental health consequences of harsh prison policies 13
Rationale for the Study 14
Statement of the Research 17
CHAPTER 2: LITERATUREREVIEW 19
Historical Context of Black Male Incarceration 19
Theories of Punishment: 22
Historical Background 22
The Theoretical Meaning of Punishment 24
Defining punishment 24
Legal and State punishment 26
Theoretical Justifications for Punishment 27
Retribution 27
Deterrence 30
Incapacitation 31
Rehabilitation (Reform) 33
The Prison Experience 36
Deprivation and Importation Theory 36
Prison Trauma 40
viii
The Post-Release Experience 43
Barriers to a Successful Reentry 48
Employment 49
Public assistance and public housing 50
Neighborhood effect 51
Felony disenfranchisement 52
Parole (Community supervision) 53
Social and Psychological Factors and Post-Release Success 55 Social factors - Black masculinity and racism 55
Psychological factors 59
Program needs 62
Exemplars 62
The US Negro problem: The integration of freed Blacks 64 Successful Reentry?: An Empirical Literature Review 65
Risk assessments 69
Select programs: Aiming at recidivism 71
Boston Reentry Initiative 72
Preventing Parolee Failure Program 73
Parole based approach 73
Other models 74
Multi-pronged approaches 76
Personal supports 76
Tangible supports 78
Weak program effect 79
Rationale for giving attention to the individual’s perspective 80
Defining success 82
Social Work and Reentry 84
Summary 86
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 89
Introduction 89
Researcher’s Position 89
ix Methodology: Constructivist Grounded Theory Approach 90
Pilot Study 93
The Main Study 95
My study sample 95
Sampling strategy 95
Recruiting procedures 96
Eligibility 96
Data Collection Procedure 97
Collection of demographic data 97
Collection of interview data: The process 98
The interview protocol 98
Introductory script 98
Initial Data Analysis Strategy 100
Credibility (authenticity) and trustworthiness 102 Member checking, peer, and mentor examination 102
Ethical Issues 103
Institutional Review Board 103
Confidentiality 104
Minimizing harm 104
Conflict of interest 104
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH FINDINGS 105
Introduction 105
Study Participants 105
Findings 107
Attaining a Satisfying Quality of Life 108
Remaining free 108
Quality of life 108
Tangible symbols of success 110
Housing 110
De-emphasizing the tangible 111
Education 111
x
Employment 112
Family Reintegration and Family Support 113
Family Reintegration 113
Building family 114
Intimate relationships 114
Family support 115
Other Relationships and Support 115
Relationships 115
Friendships 116
Social Supports 117
Receipt of social services 117
In-prison relationships 117
Community Reintegration and Engagement 118
Community reintegration 118
Civic or community activity 119
Serving the in-prison community 120
Self-Concept 120
Self-worth 120
Self-reflection 121
Sense of humanity 121
Dealing with stigma 122
Redefining self 124
Personal autonomy 126
Coping 127
Spirituality 127
Maintaining mental health 128
Maintaining physical health 129
Remaining drug free 130
Limits to the ability to cope 130
Fitting in 131
Summary 133
xi
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 134
Toward a Grounded Theory of Post-Prison Success 134
Fitting-in: Summary of the Central Feature 134
The Relationship Between Pre-prison and In-prison Experiences 139 The Framework, the Research Questions, and the Existing Literature 139
Fitting-in 140
Theme 1: Attaining a Satisfying Quality of Life 143
Theme 2: Family Reintegration and Family Support 144
Theme 3: Other Relationships and Support 147
Theme 4: Community Reintegration and Engagement 148
Theme 5: Self-Concept 149
Theme 6: Coping 152
Limitations of the Study 155
Recommendation for Future Research 156
Implications for Social Work Practice 159
Social Work’s Person-In-Environment Perspective 159
Fulfill Ethical Responsibilities to the Broader Society 161
Conclusion 163
Epilogue 164
Advocacy: Amend the Thirteenth Amendment of the US Constitution 164 Program Design: Revisit The Freedman Reentry Program Model 166
APPENDICES 169
A. Prevalence of symptoms of mental disorders among prison and jail inmates 169
B. Standard Conditions of Parole 170
C. Email Script 173
D. Introductory Script 174
E. Demographic Questionnaire 179
F. Coding Categories 180
G. Institutional Review Board Approval Letter 181
REFERENCES 182
xii List of Tables and Figures
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of the Study Participants 106
Table 2: Age at Incarceration and Time Incarcerated 107
Table 3: Summary of Codes 109
List of Figures
Figure 1: A Conceptual Framework of Post-Prison Success 135
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Community Reintegration: An Emerging Social Problem Punishment policies of the mid-1970s evidenced little attention to community
reintegration (Seiter & Kadela, 2003; Travis, 2002). In the decades following the 1970s and the sentencing policies that fueled incarceration, states’ prison populations grew 708% (The Public Safety Performance Project, 2010); the federal prison population increased every year between 2000 and 2009 from 145,416 to 208,118, averaging 4.1% each year (West, Sabol, & Greenman, 2010). Similarly, among those in local county and city jails, people in jails rose some 24%
between 2000 and 2009 from 621, 149 to 767,620, representing, on average, a 3% increase each year since 2000 (Minton, 2010). These trends show dramatic increases in the size of the
incarcerated population in a relatively short period.
Prior to the era of mass incarceration when the numbers in prison included only a few hundred thousand and the numbers released each year totaled no more than a few thousand, issues regarding reentry received little public attention and presented few challenges to the communities where those released returned (Seiter & Kadela, 2003). In contrast, since the start of the 21st century, an unprecedented number of people are released from prison at much higher rates (Listwan, Cullen, & Latessa, 2006), making reentry a social problem that may no longer be ignored.
The growth of the prison population beginning in the 1970s resulted in a large population of people who had been incarcerated returning to the community after they served their terms, from 142,033 in 1978 to 637, 411 in 2012 (Carson & Golinelli, 2013). In 2009, 1,998 people returned to the community from state or federal prison every day; this number does not include those released from county or city jails. Given the rates at which people were are released from
prison, some 7 million people would be returning from prison in the coming decades (Gideon, 2011). Moreover, the demographic characteristics of the incarcerated population suggest that a large proportion of those released are poor men of color from a relatively small number of inner- city communities (Carson, 2015; Wacquant, 2010a). This research focuses on the reentry
experiences of formerly incarcerated men who self-identify as African American born in the United States and who live in the New York City area.
Petersilia (2004, p. 5) defines reentry as “all the activities and programming conducted to prepare ex-convicts to return safely to the community and to live as law abiding citizens
(including) time during confinement, the process by which they are released, and how they are supervised after released.” In general, at least 95% of all people incarcerated in state or federal facilities return to the community, most under parole supervision (Hughes & Wilson, 2003).
Parole is the release from prison following serving a portion of the maximum term of a sentence and includes federal or state monitoring. Parole release is linked to receipt of an indeterminate sentence, a range of time rather than a set time to be imprisoned, established by judges at the time of sentencing (Bosworth, 2005).
People who reenter the community following long periods of incarceration face many challenges. Research indicates that those returning from prison often return in the same or in a worsened condition than they were before entering prison. They are likely to have few
marketable skills and are difficult to employ. Some suffer from mental disorders. A portion of people in prison are HIV positive, have confirmed AIDS, or have other health problems (Freudenberg, Daniels, Crum, Perkins, & Richie, 2008; Maruscha, 2010). Moreover, among people returning from prison and jail, very few have positive social supports. Once released, they have high rates of death by suicide, homicide, or overdose from drug use (Binswanger, et
al., 2011; Binswanger, et al., 2007; Lim, et al., 2012). Finally, when people do return from prison or jail, they tend to be concentrated in areas that are characteristically impoverished and provide little economic opportunity; in addition, as many as three in ten are likely to become homeless (Bernstein, 2011; Cnaan, Draine, Frazier, & Sinha, 2008; Geller & Curtis, 2011; La Vigne, Cowan & Brazzell, 2006; Paquette, 2011).
Research indicates that people released from prison are likely to return within a few years. Nationally, three in ten formerly incarcerated people recidivate within six months of their release, increasing to two out of three within three years after release; three of four within five.
(Durose, Cooper & Snyder, 2014). More than half are returned to prison within this critical period. Rates of recidivism are likely to vary from state to state and study to study because of different measures employed (Castillo, et al., 2004) or because the measures are ad hoc in nature (Malts, 1984). Recidivism is the primary outcome measure of incarceration and is assessed on a number of factors: post-prison arrest, violations of conditions of release, new convictions or incarceration (Lyman & Lobelia, 2007; Mayfield, 2004; Wormith, Althouse, Simpson, Reitzel, Fagan, & Morgan, 2007). Post-release incarceration often follows the violation of conditions of release or the commission of crime. However, either scenario has a negative impact on public safety (Carter, Gibe, Gigue & Striker, 2007; Hughes & Wilson, 2003; Langan & Levin, 2002).
Reports issued by the New York State’s Department of Correction show that the return to prison rate for those released from New York State’s prisons has been relatively consistent in recent years. Between 1985 and 2008, an average of 41% of those released have been returned to prison following release; nearly two of three were returned for violating the conditions of their release, and more than a third incarcerated for new crimes (Kim, 2012).
Background to the Problem: The Era of Mass (Hyper) Incarceration
Increases in crime, arrest, conviction, incarceration rates and the lengthening of prison terms beginning in the early 1970s peaked as the twentieth century ended (Blumstein & Beck, 2000; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2012; Maguire, 2008; Mauer, 2001). This began the period described by some as the mass incarceration of American citizens, so that by 2001 the US imprisons more people per 100,000 than any other country in the world including China
(Garland, 2001b; Walmsley, 2011). During this same period, incarceration became the primary method to address fears related to the perception of widespread crime (Beckett & Sasson, 2004).
Public officials devised policies that pursued punishment for those convicted of wrongdoing in response to crime or the perception of crime, and as part of revanchist post-civil rights era strategies that were mainly experienced by people of color (Wacquant, 2010a; Covington, 2010;
Simon, 2007). In its wake, the prison population changed from mostly White incarcerates to more than two-thirds non-White as the twenty-first century began (Miller, 2013; Wacquant, 2010a). Wacquant (2010a) characterizes the era as one of hyper-incarceration rather than mass incarceration because African Americans living in impoverished urban communities were acutely targeted, while middle and upper class Americans of all other ethnic or racial groups were left intact (Western & Wildeman, 2008). Cooper (2011) includes gender in this analysis because men of color are acutely targeted compared to others and because contemporary penal policies increased the rate at which women of color were incarcerated compared to other women.
The notion of hyper-incarceration runs counter to previous descriptions of the era that emphasize the increase in the rate of incarceration and the growth of the prison population post- 1970 alone (Cooper, 2011; Garland, 2001b; Goldson, 2005; Simon 2000). Wacquant’s (2010a) characterization sheds light on the disproportionate rates of incarceration and makes more
relevant the need to single out African American men and their experiences as the foci of this analysis in light of the failure of others to detail the experiences of poor urban African American men when reviewing the impact of incarceration policies. The notion of mass incarceration obscures the role of race, ignores inequalities and suggests equal widespread effect of incarceration policies; clearly this is not the case.
The historical and cultural tendency of criminalizing men of color, particularly Black men, imbedded in the present era of hyper-incarceration began long before the 1970s
(Alexander, 2010; Blackmon, 2009; Johnson, 2011; Miller, 2013; Muhammad, 2010; Raza, 2011; Wacquant, 2010a). At the dawn of American slavery, Biblical references were used to rationalize the enslavement of Africans, simultaneously perpetuating the myth of black
inferiority, and promoting White supremacy (Covington, 2010; Burris-Kitchen & Burris, 2011).
In general, dominant groups tend to criminalize, demonize, and or “other” those not in the dominant group. Marginalized people are stigmatized and stereotyped as part of a broader strategy to control and marginalize these groups (Mullaly, 2010). As divisions are fostered, for example, along class, sex and racial lines, they tend to create an us and them, or wedge between those with power and those who lack it. Those lacking power, because they are the enemies of the status quo, are likely to be subjects of abuse, exploitation, and oppression to maintain
positions of domination by those possessing power (Covington, 2010; Silliman, Bhattacharjee, &
Davis, 2002). Similarly, LGBT people in the United States have been targets for criminalization in this manner (Mogul, Ritchie, & Whitlock 2011) as have people with a mental illness, both of whom have increasingly been subjected to police surveillance and, for the latter, are more frequently found in prison rather than mental health systems (Teplin, 1984; Torrey, Eslinger,
Lamb, & Pavle, 2010; Torrey, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (U.S.), & Public Citizen Health Research Group, 2002).
Referencing a master-slave paradigm, Mullaly (2010) and others (Cooper, 2013) suggest that stigma and the accompanying internalization of the demonized mark or status serves to reinforce practices of oppression in those posing as the master class and an acceptance of
inferiority by those oppressed. In the case of the criminal justice system, once transformed into a convict, the person so marked is made to endure a new social construction that segregates and disempowers. Over an extended period, this relationship appears natural and normal and becomes difficult to unravel, particularly when it gains legal support (Cooper, 2013).
The Thirteenth Amendment of the US Constitution legitimized the newly freed poor African Americans as targets for incarceration by declaring that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction” (Burris-Kitchen &
Burris, 2011; Christianson, 1998, p. 169; National Archives, 2013; Raza, 2011). Although there had been a fundamental change in the law which previously permitted slavery, southern Whites were not ready to change the master slave social relationship they previously held with now freed African American who defined what it meant to be white (Blackmon, 2009). Being white meant to be superior to those previously held in bondage who were not deemed as human.
Nineteenth century social scientists provided justification for the continued failure to recognize African Americans as humans and for their racial criminalization by referencing “the
peculiarities of nature which belong to the Negroes as a race” and their “crime-stained
blackness” (Muhammad, 2010, p. 13, 16-17, 20). In addition, analyses of statistical data from 1870, 1880, and 1890 census reports were also used, along with the Uniform Crime Reports first
developed in the 1930s (Blackmon 2009; Covington, 2010; Muhammad, 2010) for this same purpose.
Scholars have further documented the construction of black deviance in the postbellum south, the civil laws (Black Codes and Vagrancy Laws) written in response to perceived black criminality, and use of the media to ensure both message and image were clear (Blackmon, 2009;
Covington, 2010; Miller, 2013; Stewart, 1998). As Miller (2013) reported, freedmen were incarcerated under southern vagrancy laws for refusal to work as sharecroppers on the plantations from which they had been freed and for a number of other pretenses. These laws were later replicated in other parts of the United States, and when implemented, drastically changed the prison demographics of states and other localities during that time (Blackmon, 2009;
Christianson, 1998; Miller, 2013; Oshinsky, 1997). The Black Codes, Vagrancy Laws, Pig Laws, and others, a la the 13th Amendment and media messages established the color of crime.
These laws were designed for and used specifically against African Americans (Blackmon, 2009;
Cohen, 1976; Covington, 2010; Miller, 2013; Raza, 2011; Steward, 1998). Raza (2011) argued that these laws were also designed to control, subjugate, and relegate freed Blacks to the low end of the social ladder. Moreover, these laws were among a “host of extralegal and illegal
practices” designed to facilitate the incarceration of African Americans for slave-like work, convict leasing, forced labor, and other forms of exploitation in an attempt to make up for the lost economic benefits of free labor enjoyed during slavery post-Emancipation Proclamation (Blackmon, 2009; Burris-Kitchen & Burris, 2011; Christianson, 1998; Cohen, 1976, p. 34;
Oshinsky, 1997; Raza, 2011; Stewart, 1998). Miller explained explains that during these times a
“conviction as a vagrant meant lengthy terms of imprisonment under the chain gangs and convict leasing system. As a result, by the end of the 19th century, Blacks comprised more than 90
percent of the convict leasing system in a still agricultural but industrializing south” (2013, p.
578).
Some scholars argue that the criminal justice system serves the same purpose as those older laws and controls did so long ago (Johnson, 2011; Wacquant, 2002). Despite the continued disproportionate incarceration of African Americans, contemporary criminologist provide
justifications for imprisonment that include retribution, incapacitation, general and specific deterrence, and rehabilitation of those convicted of a crime (Bedau & Kelly, 2010; Benavie, 2009; Dillof, 2011; Gromet & Darley, 2009; Wacquant, 2002; Weisberg, 2012).
Changes in imprisonment objectives. In the decades before the 1970s, the rehabilitation of people convicted of crime was the dominant objective of imprisonment, not punishment (Garland, 2001b). People sent to prison received recreational, educational, vocational programs, and therapeutic activities to aid their rehabilitation (Carlson, Roth & Travisono, 2008; Kann, 2005; Pollock, 2006). However, the 1960s ended with a rejection of the rehabilitation model and growing discontent with this approach and, along with the growth in the prison population, the beginning of an era ushering in a return to incapacitation, retributivism, and increased
punishment (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Carlson, et al, 2008; Pollock, 2006). This shift followed the belief that rehabilitation programs had failed to rehabilitate or improve people in prison. This view was based, in large part, upon New York sociologist and criminologist Robert Martinson and colleagues’ report entitled The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment: A Survey of Treatment Valuation Studies (Lipton, Martinson & Wilks, 1975). Martinson’s (1974) report summarized publications focused on recidivism and warned of the varying meanings associated with success and failure in the 231 studies he and his colleagues reviewed. The report (emphasis added) concluded that “With few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts that have been
reported so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism” (Martinson, 1974, p. 25). The failed programs included analyses of education and vocational training, individual and group counseling, “milieu therapy” (the inclusion of a rehabilitative or treatment atmosphere
throughout the entire prison environment), medical treatment for those committing drug, sex and other crimes, and a number of other strategies and treatments designed to improve people in prison (Martinson, 1974).
Consequently, the1970s was the beginning of a “tough on crime” approach to control criminal behavior to ensure that punishment, in the eyes of its proponents, was commensurate with crime (von Hirsch, 1976, 1996). Some researchers have suggested that the increased reliance on incarceration as an instrument of control, and other changes toward more punitive crime control approaches, grew out of political efforts to counter gains made by African Americans during the Civil Rights Era (Alexander, 2010; Beckett & Sasson, 2008; Beckett &
Sasson, 2004; Loury, 2007). Moreover, these controls generally furthered the disproportionate imprisonment of Black men (Mauer & King, 2007; Pettit & Western, 2004; Tonry, 1994).
However, researchers have identified several possible influences that generally linked with the changes in attitude and policy during this time. Examples include an assumed rise in crime;
extensive media coverage that dramatized crime (Tonry; 1999); public demand and anger about crime; politicians using crime issues to gain support for their careers (Matthews, 2005; Tonry, 1999); changes in the political environment (Yates & Fording, 2005); criminalizing racial discord of previous decades (Loury, 2007); and others (Caplow & Simon, 1999; Feeley &
Simon, 1992; Mauer, 2001). None of these changes were forward-looking or took into consideration consequences of those changes, and were not contingent upon recidivism rates post-prison. Moreover, the three national studies tracking people released from prison in 1983, a
group release in 1994, and among those released in 2005, show similar rates of recidivism after three years as defined during those times: 62.5 % recidivated among those released in 1983, 67.5% among those released in 1994, and 67.8% of those released in 2005 (Cooper, Durose, &
Snyder, 2014; Langan & Levin, 2002; Beck & Shipley, 1989). Those released in 2005 were also tracked over a five-year period. That data also showed that three in four (76.6%) recidivate within five years of release (Cooper, Durose, & Snyder, 2014). As already noted, in New York State recidivism rates were virtually unchanged between 1985 and 2008 (Kim, 2012).
In addition to the get tough rhetoric, literature suggests that the 1970s-era coincided with a revised version of racialized crime and crime control policies reminiscent of those that began after emancipation and continued more than a 100 years later (Alexander, 2010; Blackmon, 2009; Muhammad, 2010; Nixon, et al., 2008; Wacquant, 2002; Western, 2004; Western, 2007).
Although people of color have traditionally been more affected by US crime control efforts, by the 21st century the percentage of incarcerated people of color (non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics of any origin) in the US was grossly disproportionate compared to the percentages of people of color described in the US census data (Warde, 2013). African Americans and
Hispanics combined made up 21% of the population in 1990 and about 25% by 2000 (Evan, Price, & Barron, 2001; Franklin, Villamil, & Bryant, 1992; Pollock, 2006; Tonry, 1994). Data as of 2013 makd up about 29% of the population, while among all people confined to a state or federal prison, two out of three were are persons of color. Warde (2013, p. 461, 462) notes that Black men, “only 6 % of the population, . . . accounted for 28 % of all arrests and 40 % of all men held in prison and jail in 2008 . . . [and] comprised 9 % of those men who were on either probation or parole” in the same year. Moreover, incarceration rates for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic male and female adults of all ages have consistently outpaced their White counterparts
(Carson & Sabol, 2012; Garland, Spohn & Wodahl, 2008; Humes, Jones & Ramirez, 2011;
Sabol, West & Cooper, 2010; Warde, 2013). Research suggests that changes in sentencing strategies introduced decades earlier contributed to this trend (Clear & Austin, 2009; Drucker, 2002; Mauer, 2001).
Changing sentencing strategies. Sentencing strategies are policy approaches that often reflect shifts in ideological and political perspectives for correctional goals. Changes in
sentencing strategies linked to increases in incarceration have also resulted in longer stays in prison for every type of crime. These changes are important to note given claims that
incarceration has effects on health, particularly after release (Schnittker & John, 2007), is likely to truncate psychosocial development (Dmitrieva, Monahan, Cauffman, & Steinberg, 2012), and that the resultant psychological effects of incarceration are likely to manifest post release
(Haney, 2003; Herman, 1992; Schnittker & John, 2007). Moreover, prolonged harsh prison conditions believed to be traumatic have been linked with Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), Disorders of extreme stress (DESNOS), Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD), and adjustment disorder, and are not likely to lead to positive post-release outcomes (Chen &
Shapiro, 2007). During the 1970s, the previously universal indeterminate sentencing model, model – a range rather than a specified period, gave way to determinate sentencing. This approach gained wide support fueled by rhetoric expressive of a conservative crime agenda calling for “just deserts” and “truth in sentencing” (Berman, 2005; Griset, 1991; Griset, 1999;
Hamm, 1989; Segall, 2010; Seghetti & Smith, 2007). Mandatory sentencing also suggested an ideological policy shift from rehabilitation to a punitive approach to criminal behavior (Roberts, 2003; Tonry, 2006).). Mandatory sentencing took various forms, most notably as mandatory minimum sentences and “three strikes you’re out” laws. These policies resulted in longer prison
sentences for a number of people convicted of crime, including those convicted of crimes for the first time (Mays & Winfree, 2009). On the federal level, changes in sentencing policies
culminated in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. The law effectively limited use of indeterminate sentencing and parole. It lead to longer prison terms and contributed to the rise in the federal prison population (Gorman, 2010;
Stith & Koh, 1993).
The Nation’s “war on drugs” also contributed to the mass incarceration of US citizens and the hyper-incarceration of people of color. The war was part of the tough on crime approach that had both political and racial undertones. Those convicted of a drug offense were sentenced to prison terms longer than those meted out for rape and weapons offenses; the large majority of those receiving these sentences for drug offenses were people of color (Alexander, 2010;
Benavie, 2009). The total number of people confined in a jail or prison around the country for drug offenses between 1980 and 2010 increased from 41,000 to 507,000 (Sentencing Project, 2012). It seems probable that State policies reflected national trends; policies changes in New York State during this same period mirrored those enacted on the national level (New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform, 2009).
Between 1931 and 1962, New York State’s under custody population increased from 12,000 to 19,000 (New York State Assembly's Committee on Ways & Means, 1998). It hovered around the 1962 level until 1972. In 1973, the New York State Legislature under the leadership of then Governor Nelson Rockefeller enacted the Rockefeller Drug Laws. For the first time, people convicted of drug offenses were sentenced to a minimum of 15 years for the sale or possession of two ounces of a variety of controlled substances (New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform, 2009). Violators of some drug offences were given sentences with life
terms. In addition, limitations were placed on plea-bargaining, or a negotiation between the accused, the prosecution, and the judge to settle a criminal case when people arrested for these crimes acknowledged guilt and opted not to adjudicate their cases before a jury. The Rockefeller Drug Laws are blamed, in part, for mandatory minimum sentences and a significant increase in New York State’s prison population (Drucker, 2002; Glasser, 2000; Mauer, 2001; Schlosser, 1998; Wilson, 2000). As a result of these laws, the State’s incarceration rates per 100,000 increased from 120 in 1979 to 400 per 100,000 in 1999 (Maguire, 2012; Pastore & Maguire, 2000) and the prison population more than tripled during that same period, peaking at over 72,000 by 1999 (Beck & Harrison, 2001). Sentencing reforms enacted by New York in 1995 also contributed to the prison bulge (New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform, 2009).
Punitive approaches to criminal offenses continued in New York in later decades under other administrations. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1995 enacted by the New York
Legislature was signed into law by Governor George Pataki in his first year of office (NYS Assembly's Committee on Ways and Means, 1998; NYS Commission on Sentencing Reform, 2009). The measure called for stiffer sentences for persons convicted of violent offenses and included the requirement that people convicted of violent crimes spend at least 85% of their sentences confined to a state prison. In some instances, the minimum time served for violent crimes defined under old State statutes doubled. Before the law’s passage, a little more than a third of those convicted of a violent offense received sentences of at least ten years; after its passage, all those convicted of violent offenses received sentences of ten years or more (New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform, 2009).
Mental health consequences of harsh prison policies. During the era of hyper- incarceration, the increased use of solitary confinement, longer sentences, and the decrease in
rehabilitation services were contemporary symbols that the conditions in which people were incarcerated had worsened as a result of a punitive approach to criminal offending (Pizarro &
Stenius, 2004; Pizarro, Stenius & Pratt, 2006). The prisons had become little more than human warehouses, which had deleterious effects upon people who were incarcerated. Evidence about the negative effects of incarceration on the psychological well-being of otherwise mentally sound individuals has been well-documented (Haney & Zimbardo, 1998; Kaye, 2008; Zimbardo, 1973).
The prison experience is neither normal nor natural. It is among the most degrading experiences a person might endure (Kling, 1941). Some studies suggest that people in prison experience mental deterioration and apathy, endure personality changes, and become uncertain about their identities (Rhodes, 2005). A number of researchers have found that people in prison may be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorders and other psychiatric disorders, such as panic attacks, depression, and paranoia (Geaney, 2008; Grounds, 2004). Subsequently, once released, former incarcerates are likely to find social adjustment and social integration difficult, difficult primarily because of a lack of mental health services to address their unique experiences (Ground
& Jamieson, 2003). Others have found that the incarceration experience promotes a sense of helplessness, greater dependence, introversion, and impairs one’s decision-making ability (Schill
& Marcus, 1998). The psychological suffering is compounded by experiencing or witnessing violence, both of which are common during incarceration (Listwan, Colvin, Hanley & Flannery, 2010; Morgan, 2009; Patrick, 1998; Pollock, 2006; Trammel, 2006). Some researchers assert that the psychological effects of incarceration developed during confinement are likely to endure for some time following release (Clemmer, 1940; Haney, 2003; Kling 1941).
Rationale for the Study
This qualitative study was initiated for a variety of reasons. Although some efforts are underway to enhance prisoner reentry by bettering in-prison and post-prison programs (Buford &
Bergeron, 2006; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005; Petersilia, 2004; Seiter & Kadela, 2003), neither the effectiveness of these programs nor the determinants of successful reentry are well
understood. Even the notions of success researcher’s use are primitive; most use recidivism as the principle outcome variable without considering constructs from the social sciences or what those reentering the community want for themselves. In other words, there is little research evidence that consistently suggests what variables are associated with remaining in the community. What is lacking are agreed-upon notions and indicators of positive post-release outcomes and an appreciation of the complexity of the post-release challenges and the web of service providers that include substance abuse, sex crimes, post-prison service providers including mental health service providers, faith-based initiatives, and others (Wormith, et al., 2007). For example, an interim theory would need to incorporate elements of the in-prison experience (length of confinement, perceptions of the experience, programming or training, etc.), community adjustment post-release (social supports, parole experience, employment and housing opportunities, physical and mental health, substance abuse, etc.) as well as any number of
interrelated psychological factors that may be related to the lived experiences.
The large number of people returning to prison following release suggests that most exiting prison are ill prepared to reenter society and that the often toxic communities they return to, and to some extent, the larger community, are ill prepared and ill equipped to receive them (Kubrin & Stewart, 2006; Rose & Clear, 2003; Stahler, Mennis, Belenko, Welsh, Hiller, &
Zajac, 2013). The characteristics of the released population mirror the demographic
characteristics of the incarcerated population; the largest proportion of those released are people
of color. Research shows that rates of failure vary by race and that the rate of failure is higher among people of color compared to Whites (Cooper, Durose, & Snyder, 2014). The failure of Black men to successfully reintegrate in their home communities has an impact on the families and communities receiving them ( Marlow & Chesla ,2009). When large numbers of a community are cycling in and out of correctional facilities and carrying with them the lasting consequences of incarceration, these factors tend to further destabilize the community and further weaken already fragile families (Kubrin, Squires & Stewart, 2007).
Moreover, a failure to successfully reintegrate also compromises public safety, as some reentrants return to crime (Pew Center on the States, 2011). For these, “ ‘reentry’ into society would be more accurately described as (a) prelude to another entry into the prison” (Wacquant, 2010b, p. 611). A return to crime includes varying cost to the victims of crime as well as the additional cost of policing and prosecution. In addition, failed reentry results in added cost for states that already spend billions of dollars on correctional budgets (Council of State
Governments Justice Center, 2013).
Clearly, additional research that may unearth predictors of successful community
reintegration would help inform alternative strategies and policies designed to address the return of people from prison, both while they are in prison and at post-release, particularly as it relates to Black men returning to their communities and retarding the trends noted above. Few
empirical studies of any sort have evaluated predictors of successful reentry overall, and even less is known about the meaning of successful reentry from the perspective of formerly
incarcerated people who should be viewed as stakeholders in the process. Moreover, even fewer studies, if any, make this examination from the perspective of former Black incarcerates returned to an urban setting (Trimbur, 2009). There is little evidence of any effort to address the
psychological effects of incarceration such as trauma or of the affective aspects of the post- release experience in general or among African American men. As a result, there is little known about the psychological characteristics of successful reentrants in general or of incarcerated Black men in particular. Simply put, the experience of incarceration has received little attention from the perspective of those who have spent time in prison (Mbuba, 2012), nor has research including that experience been related to post release outcomes of former incarcerates of African descent living in an urban environment.
This study was conducted in New York City and included US born Black men who self- identify as African American who have not returned to prison for at least three years – after this time frame two thirds return to prison - in an effort to bridge some of the gaps in the literature and to give voice to this group. The objective is to develop a theoretical understanding of success post-release or successful reentry that expands the knowledge of successful reentry in relation to recidivism rates. The issues raised here suggest that employing a qualitative methodology would best aid in efforts to identify and describe those aspects of the post-prison experiences that might contribute to a theory of positive community reintegration. Future researchers wishing to increase their knowledge about post-release outcomes among Black men will gain insights from this study.
Statement of the Research
The purpose of this research is to explore and describe the experiences that New York City Black men released from prison have of their post-release experiences in the community after having been in the community at least three years. The goal of this study is to gain insight from the experiential knowledge of formerly incarcerated people. Factors are identified that enable Black men who make the social and psychological adjustments needed to get on with
their lives post-release. A recounting of these experiences may inform policy discussions and reviews related to intervention alternatives for Black men currently incarcerated and those released. Moreover, the study offers social work scholars and practitioners insights that will enable them to better understand this population and foster a development of additional methods to address the psychological challenges related to post-prison adjustment likely to contribute to their well-being post-release. In addition, insights may be gained on how in-prison programming might contribute in some way to successful reintegration.
The following research questions were designed to obtain a better understanding of the post-release experience of Black men who have remained outside of prison for three or more years are:
1. How do they define success after prison?
2. What were their post-prison experiences pursuing success as they define it?
3. In the men’s experience, how and in what ways did in-prison experiences shape their pursuit of success post-release?
The final questions emerge from a review of literature on mental health discussed below, so they are exploratory. These questions relate to well-being post-release and what well-being means for former incarcerates. More specifically, they relate to how formerly incarcerated US- born Black men understand and define well-being, to the ways they achieve it, the coping
strategies employed to maintain positive well-being or what they believe they need to achieve it.
Answers to these questions may provide important insights related to the long term objectives of this study.
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review begins with a discussion of the historical context of Black male incarceration, including the context out of which the contemporary US penal system emerged. It documents the increased emphasis on punitive policies for those convicted of crime in the US that subsequently fueled mass incarceration and the ensuing problem of reentry. The review includes a historical context from which to examine the theoretical meaning and the theoretical justifications for punishment. A discussion of the psychological impact of the prison and post- release experiences add to the review of a number of barriers to a successful reentry. The chapter concludes with an empirical review of select programs that aim to reduce recidivism and regard this approach as the indicator of program success. The researcher offers a rationale for giving attention to an alternative perspective.
Historical Context of Black Male Incarceration
The rise in the number of people in US prisons has been well documented along with a myriad of links to what is now called the carceral state (Alexander, 2010; Beckett & Sasson, 2008; Beckett & Sasson, 2004; Benavie, 2009; Cole, 2011; Loury, 2007; Mauer & King, 2007;
Pettit & Western, 2004; Tonry, 1994;Tonry; 1999). Despite the number of varying explanations for its establishment, Marie Gottschalk (2008, p. 237) observed that “many of them do have one thing in common. They adopt a relatively short time frame as they focus on trying to identify what changed in the United States since the 1960s to disrupt its generally stable and
unexceptional incarceration rate . . .” However, research related to incarceration trends suggest that this is not a new development. In addition, there is a body of literature suggesting that the incarceration of black men at disproportionate rates is a long-standing practice as well (Brewer &
Heitzeg, 2008; Cahalan, 1979).
An examination of incarceration rates prior to contemporary well-known trends suggest that the 1880s marked an “increased use of incarceration, . . . [e]xtensive prison construction, organization of police forces, and increased formalization of criminal legislation and litigation processes” that began some fifty years prior (Cahalan, 1979, p. 11). Data amassed by Cahalan (1979) suggest that US incarceration rates for all adults and juveniles confined in state, federal prisons, reformatories, juvenile correctional facilities, jails, and similar facilities increased from 138 per 100,000 in 1880 to 213 per 100,000 in 1970. These figures likely underreport the actual numbers since those reported do not include people incarcerated in military prisons, mental hospitals or other prisons. Even so, the number of people confined in these facilities during this period increased sixfold from an estimated 81,000 in 1880 to an estimated 512,000 in 1970 (Cahalan, 1979). Cahalan’s findings also suggest that the percentage of mostly black men
incarcerated since 1880s has consistently more than doubled the percent of Blacks within the US population, ranging from 28.6% incarcerated compared to 13.1% of the US population in 1880 to 40.7% incarcerated to 11.1% of the US population in 1970. Prior to the 1880s, European
immigrants were the largest percentage among the incarcerated. Before this time, US born Blacks had been held in bondage.
While some scholars suggest that “the United States did not end up with the carceral state merely because [of] racial cleavages (Gottschalk, 2008, p. 239) others do (Alexander, 2010;
Brewer & Heitzeg, 2008; Davis & Freeman, 2010; Hallett, 2004; Mauer, 2004; Wacquant, 2001), and link the foundation of the system of incarceration and related policies to the US Constitution:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction (Thirteenth Amendment, US Constitution).
Hallett (2004, p. 51) reports that it was the ‘convict lease system’ based on the Thirteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, which permitted involuntary servitude to resume
immediately after the end of slavery. As a result, particularly in the South, there had been radical change in the racial demographics of the prison population. He describes how counties with a preponderance of Black people fed the state’s prisons with an ample supply of free labor. These efforts gained wide support to control and punish what may be said to be the first American “
‘black crime problem’ . . . [w]ith total disregard for the economically destitute position in which freed slaves found themselves after the war . . . trying to feed themselves and looking for shelter”
(Hallett, 2004, p. 53; Wacquant, 2001). As is now well known, these efforts were codified by a series of Black Codes that criminalize a range of behaviors that “only Black people could be duly convicted” (Blackmon, 2009; Brewer & Heitzeg, 2008; Davis, 2010, p. 28; Muhammad, 2010;
Wacquant, 2002).
Overall, polices that racialized crime or the criminalization of Blackness prior to the commission of crime have implications for the post release experiences of Black men. Social environments polarized by race undermine successful integration post-release as well. Punitive policies have given rise to the acceptance of punishment while in prison, and the direct and collateral consequences of being formally incarcerated. In all, these have exacerbated a negative post-release experience, particularly that of Black men (Heitzeg, 2009; Mauer, 2002; Mauer &
Chesney-Lind, 2002, Miller, 2011; Miller & Spillane, 2012; Visher & Travis, 2011; Travis, 2002). Garland and his colleagues (2008, p. 13 - 14) have noted that “(t)his is an especially
salient issue for Blacks given the exclusions and limitations they have encountered historically in (the United States, making it) hard to deny that racial disparity in imprisonment poses a serious threat to the perception and reality of the full integration of Blacks into American society.” The past is now the present, where slaves laws have become Black Codes, plantations have become prisons, slave labor has become prison labor, and the criminal justice system and all that it entails is a system of crime control “without ever referring to race” (Brewer & Heitzeg, 2008, p.633).
Theories of Punishment Historical Background
Historical records dating as far back as 2000 BCE, including references in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, the Qur’an and traditional Islamic text and (various Ahadith collections), make mention of the existence of prisons and dungeons where people were held for later punishment. Records show that they were also places where people were confined as punishment (Anthony, 2009; Bosworth, 2005; Butler, 1991; Johnston, 2009). Although prisons existed in England as early as the 1300s, the founders of the US did not use prison as a crime fighting tool early in the nation’s history (McShane & Williams, 1996). While still an English colony, persons convicted of crimes in the US were commonly used as indentured servants, most having been deported from England for such purposes. In the 1600s, the penal ideology of US Colonist resembled that of the English (Blomberg & Lucken, 2010; Carlson, Roth & Travisono, 2008; Perkinson, 2010). During these early years, rather than imposing lengthy prison sentences, and certainly not for the rehabilitation of those convicted of a crime, throughout the colonies violators of the law regularly endured publicly administered physical punishments (Blomberg &
Lucken, 2010; Rothman, 1995).
Punishments in the colonies were designed to be a deterrent to criminal activity. It was purposely harsh and immediate, but did not include long periods of confinement (Meskell, 1999).
The early colonists viewed crime as inevitable and were under no illusion that it could be eliminated from society (Rothman, 1995). Early colonial law, exemplified by the legal system developed in Pennsylvania, included provisions for hard labor and religious instruction as the primary means of reforming the errant.
Progressing into the 1700s and 1800s, prisons in the US became the dominant method to transform wayward people into law-abiding citizens and to teach them obedience. People in prison were either isolated, given religious literature, and or work assignments. They also worked and ate together as the means by which they were to be rehabilitated. In either case, these early prisons enforced silence, so that the incarcerated person would have to contemplate the error of their ways (Gaines & Miller, 2009; Gibson, 2011; McShane & Williams, 1996;
Pollock, 2006; Sifakis, 2003). As the 1830s neared an end, the Pennsylvania system’s policy of extreme social isolation left many prisoners mentally ill; suicides were common. Summing up their observations about disciplinary practices found in the then US prison system, Beaumont, Tocqueville and Lieber (1833, p. 47) observed, “it must be acknowledged that the penitentiary system in America is severe. Whilst society in the United States gives the example of the most extended liberty, the prisons of the same country offer the spectacle of the most complete despotism.”
Since these early times, there have been many attempts to improve conditions in US prisons signaled by the abolition of corporal punishment and the institution of recreational, educational, vocational, therapeutic activities, and programs. Along with these changes, rather than strict punishment, the goal of incarceration had been to rehabilitate the offender with an eye
